Is Pluto A Planet?

[d taylor]

Pluto isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.

There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

 

[Albion]

It's a planet. And you'd better start calling it one if you know what's good for you.

It is terribly hurtful to the residents of Pluto to be looked down upon by Earth Supremacists in the way that was done a few years ago, claiming that Pluto is just a runaway moon, saying mean things about its orbit, and using other such slurs.

 

[AV1611VET]

First scientists were saying that it was, then they said that it wasn't,.. after that they were saying that they were right the first time,.. so what are we on now? Is it considered a planet or not? And why or why not?

This bears repeating:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.


The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.


Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

One argument often used in favor of demoting Pluto is the fact that another planet was discovered beyond Pluto and that with many more possible small planets in the Kuiper Belt, we could end up with "too many planets" in our solar system. Well, there is no such thing as too many planets. At one point, we thought Jupiter had four moons. Now we know it has 63, and more may be found. Should we limit the number of moons because otherwise, there will be too many to memorize? Should we limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table because kids won't be able to memorize that many? The fact is, memorization is not a very useful learning tool. At one point, we knew little more about the planets than their names and order from the Sun. That is not true today. It is more important that kids understand what distinguishes the different types of planets.

If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a matter of definition. It is nothing to worry over because the distinction is quite unimportant.

Except it was arrived at by a rigged vote by scientists -- and the wrong kind of scientists at that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Calling @AV1611VET . Can you please come over and assist this poster with her Pluto Problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

I consider it a planet because my definition of planet is "big thing in the sky that isn't a star or asteroid." I'm sure you will get less scientific definitions later.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pluto was a dog in the cartoons.

Until a shrewdness of veterinarians (not cartoonists) got together and decided he didn't meet the qualifications of their new qualifications.

So they rigged a vote behind closed doors, after most cartoonists went home, and against their own regulations, and voted Pluto out of Saturday morning cartoons.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what would you call the moon?

Big thing in the sky that isn't a planet, star, or asteroid.

 

[Albion]

I'm beginning to see the logic in your view. It's fresh and uncluttered.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was changed then because its orbit intersects Neptune's.

Trespassing can get you demoted.

I think most people who taught growing up that it is still consider it to be so.

So do the California State Assembly, the New Mexico House of Representatives, and the Illinois senate.

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy". The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007, was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU." Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm beginning to see the logic in your view. It's fresh and uncluttered.

Why, thank you!

 

[April_Rose]

There's a new phrase to remember the planets too.

When I was a kid we had:
My very earnest mother just sits up near pop

Now they have:
My very excellent mother just serves us nachos

The second phrase makes more sense.

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.

There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

Well just because it doesn't mention the word "planet" doesn't mean that God didn't create them. Do you realize how long it would take us to mention every little thing that God created? It would be the biggest run-on sentence ever.

This bears repeating:



SOURCE

So,.. basically in conclusion Pluto is a planet I gather it?

 

[JackRT]

The ancients had no idea of the relative size of stars and planets so they simply identified the planets as "wandering stars" because their paths through the sky were erratic compared to the "fixed stars".

 

[Nithavela]

It's a planet because my very educated mother just served us nine pizzas. No nachos in this household.

 

[AV1611VET]

So,.. basically in conclusion Pluto is a planet I gather it?

Yup.

 

[Strathos]

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.

There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

I still don't see Pluto mentioned anywhere in there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I still don't see Pluto mentioned anywhere in there.

Jude 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

 

[Strathos]

Jude 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

That referred to the planets visible from earth with the naked eye. Show me where Pluto is specifically mentioned in the Bible.

Also, why would it be mentioned? It's not exactly important for the message of salvation.

 

[AV1611VET]

That referred to the planets visible from earth with the naked eye.

At the time, yes it did.

Show me where Pluto is specifically mentioned in the Bible.

It is not.

Also, why would it be mentioned?

Author's choice?

It's not exactly important for the message of salvation.

That is absolutely correct.

 

[April_Rose]

Also, why would it be mentioned? It's not exactly important for the message of salvation.

I don't think it is at all actually. Unless of course you're ET.